1 CGHC010284042026 2026:CGHC:38672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6743 of 2026 Prakash Poojan @ Sonu Masih S/o. Dipak Poojan, Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 05 Aadarsh Nagar Kawardha, P. S. Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kawardha Kabirdham (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.09.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 232/2026 registered at Police Station – Kawardha Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.09.01 16:07:02 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12/06/2026 at about 10.47 complainant Akarm ali received a phone call from his daughter, he went her house, his daughter told him that his son in law is calling him at near purana bus stand. He was going to bus stand, just then near vindhvasni mandir he found his son Shahil Ali, whose left leg was bleeding. On being asked, he told that purana bus stand near auto stand accused Sonu Masih had forcibly abused him with obscene language his mother and sister, threatened to kill him, and hit him with some object behind his left knee, which is causing bleeding. On basis of oral report, FIR was registered against the accused at police station kawardha, the accused was arrested and produced before the court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion, without there being any material connecting him with the alleged offence. It is submitted that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the applicant and that he neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant was not present at the spot at the relevant time and the evidence collected by the prosecution is not prima facie sufficient to establish his involvement in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the applicant is a 38-year-old person, having children and family responsibilities, and is a law-abiding citizen; therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses or evidence. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant is in custody since 13.06.2026 and his further pre-trial detention would serve no useful purpose, particularly when his 3 involvement in the alleged offence is not prima facie established. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has ten previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 13.06.2026, and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Prakash Poojan @ Sonu Masih, involved in Crime No. 232/2026 registered at Police Station – Kawardha Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be 4 open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav